Lovisa discusses the impact of mentorship, the art of precise legal wording, and using AI to bridge the gap from blank page to first draft.

You previously told us you’ve always wanted to be a lawyer because it seemed like an impactful and ubiquitous profession. When you started studying, did you validate what you had guessed before, or did you discover something new?

Before I went to law school, I thought being a lawyer was all about courtrooms and litigation. But during my studies, I discovered the vastness of the legal field, especially within business law. 

I learned later that it's not just about knowing the law; it's about crafting solutions. Being a lawyer is more an art of handling and solving problems, rather than just reading the law book. If I think back to when I first started three and a half years ago to now, after being admitted to the Swedish Bar Association, I've learned that the life of a lawyer is highly versatile.

We face novel problems every day. Even if we've encountered similar ones before, each situation is unique with every client. Which is the fun of this profession, that you constantly get to use your knowledge and experience to create the best solution for each client.

All cases are unique in some way, but do you feel that—having done this for three years—you start seeing patterns?

I would say that there's a lot of knowledge you carry over from matter to matter. Even if it's different clients with different businesses we're working with, it's often the same provisions, for example in lease agreement negotiations, we usually discuss damage clauses and responsibility for restoration, to name a few. Over time and the more matters you are involved in, you start to notice how similar situations arise.

The fun part of it is that you also start to notice how you have evolved when you stumble on the same issues but can handle them in smarter and better ways.‍

In hindsight, did your first cases feel more difficult compared to how a new case feels today?

They did. Now you feel like you have your own expertise, and you are more confident in the advice you give to the client. You also understand the importance of words—depending on which word you use, it can make a big difference in the final product. 

In the beginning, before you have collected your own experience, you are dependent on the insights and knowledge shared by senior colleagues or partners involved in the different matters. After a while, you see structural dependencies yourself and can lean more on your own expertise. So there's a significant difference, and more than anything, it's probably the confidence in yourself as a lawyer that increases over time.

The informal knowledge transfer that happens in most law firms is quite interesting. You work in a team; you have people around you who have done the same thing for a while. How crucial are those people you work with for the experience you gain in the first years?

I think they’re incredibly important, and it's something I've reflected on a lot lately.

"Mentorship and collaboration are both essential to growing as an associate at a law firm. The insights and guidance from experienced colleagues accelerate learning and help you develop a deeper understanding of your practice."

The training I’ve received by my seniors here and being able to work closely with partners has been invaluable. We recently welcomed another senior colleague to our department. Now that we’ve started working together, she and I have spent considerable time discussing our recent negotiations. We have different legal "pet peeves" that we are more or less passionate about. These discussions have been very valuable for our cooperation in the matters we have handled but also very stimulating from a knowledge perspective.

What are your pet peeves?

I have so many, particularly when it comes to the nuances of language in legal documents. In lease agreements it is the damage clauses, restoration, which mainly refers to single words I always highlight. For example, I have a strong preference for using "return" over "restore". Restore opens up for an ambiguous interpretation suggesting that  the tenant, upon vacating, might need to restore the premises to a better condition than intended. It shows how a word can mean something completely different depending on who is interpreting it. Does it mean restoring it to its original state or to a condition accepted by the landlord? It opens up for a broader and stricter interpretation for the tenant compared to "return the premises," which implies returning it back in the agreed upon condition or what's deemed acceptable by practice, and so on. These subtle differences in wording can significantly impact legal outcomes, which really highlights how legal considerations are dependent on language nuances.

How do you feel that seniority plays out in those situations?

At DLA Piper, we foster an environment with a 'high ceiling' for open discussions, which means that seniority doesn't overshadow the collaborative process. In my experience, the different levels of seniority hasn’t been a barrier. Instead, it has enriched our dialogue.  In the dialogue I mentioned earlier, we go over each passage along the lines of “this is what we usually say, or this has been our way of handling these provisions." And she listened and said, "Okay, but I come from this background, and these are my pet peeves." Together, we strike a balance in each negotiation, deciding which points to emphasize based on their importance in the context. It becomes an internal dialogue which allows us to learn and develop from each other, regardless of our different levels of experience.

Even though she is more senior than I am, our exchange is mutually beneficial because we bring diverse perspectives from two different schools of thought.

Would you say this is a unique culture at DLA Piper, or is it reflected in other firms as well?

I would like to say it's unique, but I hope that it would be the case for everyone in the industry.

"I think that's what makes us lawyers unique - our knowledge and experience. Everyone can read the law book. But it's more about being able to adapt to the situation and use the team’s combined experience and knowledge to create the best solution for each client. That's what makes us unique, and that's the expertise you pay for."

I think that's extra important: the exchange we have with our colleagues, no matter seniority, taking into account that everyone has worked with different matters and clients with unique takeaways. That's how we collaborate, as I've understood it, and that's what I appreciate.

How do you think that dynamic will change now that legal AI tools like Leya exist? People have started using them, especially those who just graduated and may have used AI during a large part of their education. Then they come to a workplace where there may be people who haven't jumped on these tools yet.

I think – and from what I notice – that newcomers, coming straight from school, are quicker to jump on various pilots of AI tools and legal tech programs that we bring in and test. We are faster to use them as well. But I think it's really helpful when you're new too. You need to get a feel for drafting contracts and how to do it. That in itself is an art to master and that always can be developed. It feels like these tools can help bridge the gap from a blank page to a first rough draft much faster, and then from there you start thinking.

In the past, we relied heavily on internal templates, but now, tools like Leya can provide a starting point, allowing us to focus on refining and thinking critically about the content. I think that's especially valuable for newcomers, who might not even know where to start or how to structure provisions.

Regardless of AI, what are the tasks you wish you had more time for during a typical week? 

Contract drafting is an area where I often wish for more time — the art of precise legal wording requires careful tweaking and rearranging to achieve the exact precision needed in a clause. You can also spend endless hours researching different cases, especially when looking for solutions in provisions that may be interpreted in different ways. Understanding previous practices can be time-consuming, particularly for those situations that you do not encounter very often.

We talked about experience and learning from team members. What core skills have you had to develop over the past three years?

Communication is key—translating complex legal issues into simple terms is crucial. We can throw around legal jargon, but it's pointless if you can't explain what it means in a pedagogical way. Collaboration is another priority for me, as teamwork is essential in our field. Sharing experiences and maintaining open communication about what's happening and the challenges we face is essential.

Being quick to adapt when new problems arise is also important. You need to be able to adapt to new conditions and switch gears swiftly when unforeseen issues come up.

What do you hope to improve or continue developing in the next five years, perhaps in light of AI but not necessarily limited to it?

I believe it's about continuing to share our experiences.

"Everyone's experience is valuable, regardless of seniority."

Including junior colleagues in the work and discussions from day one, especially if AI is implemented for low-impact tasks. The collaborative and mentoring aspect becomes even more important to ensure they gain the necessary experience.

I believe it's essential to involve people of all seniority levels in cases and not just have junior staff doing isolated tasks.

From an individual lawyer's perspective, what skills will be vital in the future?

I think it will become even more important for us as lawyers to possess deep knowledge. While it's convenient and efficient to use AI tools, we can't rely on them to replace the legal analysis. We need to be well-versed in the areas we work in and be proactive in learning from each other.

It's about being knowledgeable in your specialty areas to offer more than just answers that can be found directly in the law. You don't want to be a lawyer who just recites what's written but one who provides added value to the client and its business.

And I think that's what's going to be important for the individual—to build that experience to be able to create added value for the client. Even though it's challenging, especially in the beginning of your career, it's about being proactive and participating in discussions, even outside of specific cases, to gain that experience.

Last question! Where do you see yourself in ten years?

Oh, ten years is a long time. However, I’d like to be in a professional position where I am not only acting as a lawyer but as a trusted advisor in general, where I'm providing added value that reaches beyond the legal considerations to make a bigger impact.